Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1568 (RAJ)

Takhat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-22

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant 482 petition has been filed by the petitioner Takhat Singh S/o Shyam Lal for quashing the proceedings initiated against him under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur. 2. As per the facts of the case, a complaint under Section 193 IPC was filed by the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court (Anti Corruption Cases), Jodhpur stating therein that on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner on 11.8.1995, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, ACD had conducted a trap proceedings and an FIR was registered against the accused Heera Lal and others but in the trial, when statement of petitioner complainant was recorded, he turned hostile in spite of the fact that he has participated in the trap proceedings and put his signatures upon the papers of tarp proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint against the petitioner under Section 193 IPC was filed in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur on 13.12.2001 in which warrant of arrest was issued for the petitioner on 30.1.2002 in which petitioner surrendered in the court and learned court granted bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Jan., 2002 the petitioner is regularly attending the court for trial in proceedings initiated under Section 193 IPC but till today no witness turned to support the prosecution case for offence of perjury. While submitting the order-sheets of the learned trial court it is submitted that the petitioner is regularly attending the learned trial court but due to prolonged pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner is suffering mental agony because he is suffering trial from last 13 years, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner from last 13 years without initiation of trial is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has attained 63 years and till today from last 12 years from the date of framing the charge, no witness turned up, therefore, the whole proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court of Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur may be quashed because it is in violation of fundament right granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court: (i) 2002 AIR SCW 1841 : P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (ii) AIR 2007 SC 56 : Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. (iii) 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 217 : Kewal Chand Jain v. State of Rajasthan (iv) 1997 (2) Crimes 136: Haridas Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (v) 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 231 : Moolaram v. State of Rajasthan 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that solely on the ground of delay the proceedings cannot be quashed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the facts of the case. In the present case, the complaint was filed on 13.12.2001 in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur against the petitioner and thereafter, till today, no prosecution witness turned for to give evidence against the petitioner for alleged offence under Section 193 IPC. To prove the said facts certified copies of the case is brought on record. Admittedly, while deciding Cr. Case No.165/1997 (14/1996) upon complaint filed by the petitioner the Judge, Anti Corruption Court, Jodhpur acquitted two accused Heera Rama and Chhagan Singh from offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(D) of the Act of 1988 vide judgment dated 16.7.2001 but in the operative part of the judgment it is ordered that in the interest of justice to discourage the false complaints, the proceedings may be initiated against the complainant under Section 193 IPC and on that basis FIR was registered and from last 13 years none of the witnesses turned to support the prosecution case. 7. In case of P. Ramchandra Rao (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that speedy trial is a right of citizen and if trial is going on for years together without any proceedings then it is abuse of process of Court. 8. In case of Moti Lal Saraf (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the purpose of right to seedy trial is initiated to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. The para no.50 and 51 of the said judgment is relevant, which reads as under:- "50. In case of Moti Lal Saraf (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the purpose of right to seedy trial is initiated to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. The para no.50 and 51 of the said judgment is relevant, which reads as under:- "50. The purpose of right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the courts and on the prosecution to obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. 51. In order to make the administration of criminal justice effective, vibrant and meaningful, the Union of India, the State Governments and all concerned authorities must take necessary steps immediately so that the important constitutional rights of the accused of a speedy trial does not remain only on papers or is a mere formality." 9. In case of Kewal Chand Jain (supra), the coordinate bench of this Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that from last 10 years the trail is not finalize. 10. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the speedy trial is fundamental right of the citizen, therefore, the proceedings pending since last 13 years against the petitioner is abuse of process of the court because since initiation, nothing is done and petitioner is regularly attending the court. Therefore, to secure end of justice, I deemed it appropriate to quash the proceedings of Cr. Case No.591/12001 pending before the Presiding Officer, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur. Consequently, this 482 petition is hereby allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur under Section 193 IPC in the Cr. Case No.591/2001 pending before the Presiding Officer, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur is hereby quashed and set aside.